Intelligent Design

For two reasons, it is a mistake to argue for self-evident propositions.  First, it is impossible to argue for a self-evident proposition because the definition of a self-evident proposition is a proposition that is known to be true merely by understanding its meaning.  Consider the challenge “I deny 1+1=2.  Prove it.”  Don’t fall for it.  If a person denies the glaring truth of such an analytic statement (i.e., 1+1 actually means 2), they are a hopeless fool. Nothing you can say to them will reduce the proposition to more basic terms.  Secondly, arguing for self-evident truths is rhetorically self-defeating, because the very act of trying to argue for them concedes the proposition that they are “arguable.”  And they are, again Read More ›

Catchy, we gotta admit: In 1976, Hawking suggested that, as black holes evaporate, they destroy information about what had formed them. That idea goes against a fundamental law of quantum mechanics which states any process in physics can be mathematically reversed. In the 1960s, physicist John Archibald Wheeler, discussing black holes’ lack of observable features beyond their total mass, spin, and charge, coined the phrase “black holes have no hair”—known as the no-hair theorem. However, the newly discovered “quantum hair” provides a way for information to be preserved as a black hole collapses and, as such, resolves one of modern science’s most famous quandaries, experts say. Prof Calmet said: “Black holes have long been considered the perfect laboratory to study Read More ›